6072 
m2a 

/S36 


0  ^ 
0^ 

0  ^ 

8 

9 

3  — 

7 

4^ 

1  

9          ■ 

— K 

ii 

sci   : 

=o 

=1 

=  1- 

if  ' 
i? 

p 

lA^illiams 
Cracked  Jug 


{  California 

Regional 

Facility 


THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


THE   CRACKED    JUG, 


FIVE   ANSWERS 


MY    NEIGHBOR    PARLEY'S 


rZVS   £ZSTTZ8RS, 


CRACKING    HIS 


h*FIFTEEN    GALLON   JUG," 


PREFACE, 


CONGRATULATION, 
BY  "NEIGHBOR  SMITH." 

THIRD    EDITION 

BOSTON  : 
PRINTED  FOR   THE  AUTHOR. 
1838. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from. 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/crackedjugorfiveOOwilliala 


601SL 


PREFACE 


Some  time  ago,  my  neighbor  Parley  ;  I  should  rather  say  the 
Hon.  Peter  Parley  ;  (for  I  like  to  give  every  great  man  his 
title,)  addressed  five  letters  to  rae,  with  a  Preface  and  a  Postscript, 
which  he  called  the  "  Fifteets  Gallon  Jre."  and  marked  it,  0.  B. 
To  have  been  thus  noticed  by  so  distinguished  a  personage  was 
certainly  a  great  honor,  and  one  I  intended  to  have  enjoyed  all  to 
myself.  I  haVe  not  therefore,  replied  to  those  letters,  as  perhaps 
I  ought  to  have  done  in  the  first  instance.  In  fact  my  neighbor 
seemed  at  one  time  so  sensible  that  he  had  exposed  himself  to  a 
cutting  retort,  for  inconsistency,  in  his  eagerness  to  play  the  au- 
thor at  the  expense  of  the  decent  neighbor  and  fair  man,  that 
I  had  made  up  my  mind  to  let  him  off.  But  he  has  recently 
suffered  himself  to  be  put  up  for  a  responsible  office,  and  in  ask- 
ing the  votes  of  the  people,  he  asks  them  to  approve  of  his  con- 
duct as  a  neighbor  and  a  man.  For  this  reason,  I  have  changed 
my  mind,  and  after  letting  his  personal  attacks  on  me  run  through 
two  or  three  editions,  I  shall  now  try  to  do  up  my  part  of  the 
correspondence  he  has  thrust  upon  me.  I  am  no  professed  au- 
thor like  my  neighbor,  and  had  he  not  sent  me  an  article  I  am 
accustomed  to  handle,  I  might  have  been  at  a  loss  how  to  treat  it. 
But  a  Jus;  is  a  utensil  as  familiar  to  me  as  a  copy  right  is  to  my 
neighbor ;  and  without  vanity,  I  could  recommend  myself  as 
Inspector  General  of  Jugs.  The  first  service  I  remember  I  did 
my  father,  in  my  boyish  days,  was  to  carry  to  the  field  a  jug  of 
cider.  I  have  filled  Jugs  on  the  prescription  of  many  excellent 
Physicians,  and  I  have  often  handled  the  Jugs  of  other  temper- 
ance men  as  well  as  those  of  my  neighbor  Parley,  w^ho,  I  must 
Ao  him  the  justice  to  acknowledge,  always  brought  me  sound  Jugs 


11Z74L75 


IT  PREFACE. 

before  this,  and  I  filled  them,  in  the  most  dutiful  manner  wiih 
good  old  Jamaica  and  "  O.  B."  It  just  comes  to  my  mind  now, 
what  mj'  neighbor  means  by  his  signature  of  "  0.  B."  old  Brandy. 

He  knew  I  should  understand  it.  As  I  said,  he  always  brought 
me  sound  jugs  before,  but  I  am  afraid  that  in  this  instance  his 
"Jug"  is  a  '•'  w«ak  vessel  :"  if  so,  my  habit  is  to  crack  it  at  once, 
for  I  never  allow  myself  to  endanger  good  liqu6r. 

My  neighbor  has  condescended  to  tell  who  1  am  ;  and  might  be 
offended  (for  I  wish  to  be  civil,)  if  I  do  not  tell  who  he  is. 

My  neighbour  Parley  then,  is  a  wholesale  dealer  in  pretty  little 
harmloss  stories  for  the  nursery  and  other  natural  cuiiosities,  said 
by  the  best  judges  (I  am  no  critic  myself  except  in  jugs)  to 
contain  so  little  spirit  as  to  render  it  wholly  unnecessary  at  pres- 
ent, to  pass  a  law  for  the  common  good,  prohibiting  their  sale  in 
less  than  fifteen  copy  rights,  to  be  taken  and  carried  away  at  one 
time.  The  retail  not  having  been  forbidden  to  those  who  bought 
to  sell  again,  he  has  found  a  fair  market,  for  he  has  some  tact  as 
a  salesman  in  books  as  well'  as  lands,  a  circumstance  not  unfa- 
miliar to  some  of  his  neighbours,  and  is  reputed  to  have  acquired 
large  wealth  thereby,  at  least  on  paper. 

As  I  am  proud  of  having  such  a  correspondent  as  well  as 
neighbour,  I  wish  it  to  be  known  also,  (which  his  modesty  may 
have  concealed;)  that  he  has  even  visited  England,' where  he  dis- 
posed of  some  notions  in  the  form  of  cypy  rights,  and  acquired  oth- 
er notions  touching  equal  rights,  to  which  I  am  probably  indebted 
for  his  distinguishing  notice  of  me.  Seeing  there,  an  imposing 
aristocracy  Avho  indulge  in  elegant  luxury  at  the  expcnce  not  only 
of  the  liquor,  but  the  bread  of  the  laboring  classes,  he  came  home 
quite  addled,  built  the  castle  of  Rockland,  and  became  an  oracle 
in  the  village  and  a  lawgiver  in  the  land. 

In  1836,  he  commenced  as  a  total  abstinence  legislator,  and  I 
mention  with  pleasure,  as  a  proof  of  his  disinterestedness,  that 
he  has  never  hesitated  to  support  all  laws  not  interfering  with  his 
own  appetite,  and  especially  the  new  licence  law ;  being  always 
philanthropic  enough  in  the  cause  of  temperance,  to  wish  to  pre- 
vent others  from  getting  liquors,  although  during  the  whole  time, 
he  has  purchased  and  prolwbly  used  much  more  than  his  due  pro- 


PUEFACE.  ,  ▼ 

pension  of  the  wine  aad  strong  driak  that  have  been  imported  into 
the  Slate,  since  that  period. 

This  may  seem  to  some,  a  little  iacoasistency  in  character,  bui 
as  I  have  often  heard  my  neighbor  call  ardents  the  enemy  of  the 
human  race,  I  rather  attribute  his  conduct  to  benevolence,  in  lov- 
ing his  enemy.  The  notion  of  equal  rights  which  he  acquired 
abroad  is  also  in  strict  conformity  with  the  wholesome  doctrine  he 
inculcates,  as  a  part  of  his  creed  of  "  fireside"  rights,  viz  :  keep- 
ing down  the  appetites  of  the  poor  and  pampering  those  of  the 
l-ich.  A  man  of  the  profound  obaervation  of  my  neighbor  Parley, 
would  have  visited  England  to  little  purpose  if  he  had  not  discov- 
ered that  the  first  principle  in  legislation  th-ere,  is  that  laws  are 
only  wanted  to  restrain  the  poor  and  foster  the  richj  and  therefore 
the  true  distinction  in  making  laws  is  that  the  rich  and  the  well 
born  are  to  do  as  tliey  please,  and  also  have  the  privilege  of  mak- 
ing the  poor  do  as  they  please.  The  common  sense  of  commoa 
men  is  not  to  be  trusted  in  any  thing  relating  to  indulgence,  God 
having  given  them  false  appetites  in  order  to  make  it  necessary 
that  their  superiors  should  have  the  pleasure  of  ruling  over  them. 

T  have  no  idea  that  my  ne'ghbor  is  more  aristocratic  than  most 
great  men  would  be  under  like  circumstances  ;  and  it  cannot  be 
expected  that  an  author,  a  castle  builder  and  a  senator,  should 
regard  the  common  class  as  possessing  the  moral  power  to  resist 
temptation,  which  he  mast  so  eminently  enjoy,  if  indeed  he  acts 
up  to  his  professions,  surrounded  by  so  many  of  the  luxuries  he 
would  legislate  away  iVom  others. 

As  my  neighbor  sets  "up  for  a  phrenologist  as  well  as  moral  re- 
former, it  is  proper  to  say  that  his  bumps  of  self  effteem  and  appro- 
bativeness  are  remarkably  developed.  Of  course  he  courts  distinc- 
tion, and  ihinlfs  himself  deserving  of  office,  an  opinion  liliely  to 
,  be  entertained  longer  by  him.self  than  by  others.  But  though  he 
Sometime!  pusbcs  his  purpose  of  acquiring  political  power  some- 
what to  the  sacrifice  of  plain  dealing  and  manly  sincerity,  I  am 
noi  disposed  to  believe  that  he  is  worse  than  most  other  political 
asp-rants  "  who  have  been  long  harnessed  to  the  single  task"  of 
getting  t«»  Congress,  and  are  pulling  up  hill  all  the  while. 

He  is  a  kind  and  polite  gentleman  so  long  as  his  neighbors  will 
assent  to  his  modest  pretensions,  but  should  one  of  them,  in  the 


*{  TR-EFACE. 

Eincerity  of  his  heart,  drop  a  word  to  wonnd  liis  self  esteem,  6# 
becomes  restless,  and  is  likely  to  let  his  heat  get  the  better  of  hits- 
discretion  so  as  to  throw  a  "jug"  at  him  or  any  thing  else  that 
comes  to  hand,  and  then  after  having  wounded  his  neighbor  and 
subjected  him  to  the  public  gaze,  by  making  a  public  stir  about  a 
friendly  private  conversation,  he  is  astonished  to  find  that  every 
body  does  not  respect  him. 

I  have  told  what  my  neighbor  is,  but  this  is  nothing  to  what  we 
all  expect  he  will  be,  one  of  these  days.  Should  this  new  exper- 
iment of  sumptuary  laws  to  indulge  the  rich  and  choke  off  the 
poor,  succeed  and  a  regular,  legal  aristocracy  sueh  as  charmed 
my  neighbor  in  England,  be  established  here,  it  is  hinted  that  he- 
is  to  surrender  the  humble  family  name  of  Parley,  having  learn- 
ed, while  in  France  in  pursuit  of  fine  wines,  that  the"  name  was  of 
French  extraction,  and  its  true  meaning,  in  English  "  all  talk  and- 
no  cider."  In  that  event  his  neighbors  have  already  chosen  for  himr 
as  his  title  in  the  new  nobility,  the  Earl  of  Esckland.  These  few 
hmts  being  thrown  out  to  show  the  propriety  of  my  replying  to  the 
letters  with  which  he  has  honored  me,  I  will  now  proceed  to  the 
ignoble  office  to  which  nature  has  appointed  me,  of  examining  my 
lord's  great  jug. 


LlETtER    I 


INTRODUCTORY. 

My  learned  Sir,— I  did  casually  meet  you,  as  you  say,  in 
Washington  street,  soon  after  you  had  given  your  vote  for 
the  Hew  license  law,  and  though  conscious  that  I  was  con- 
Versing  with  an  aulhor,yct  I  did  not  suppose  that  I  was  to  be 
put  into  print.  Nevertheless,  as  you  have  seen  fit  to  do  so, 
I  must  needs  reply  the  best  I  can. 

I  did  express  surprise  at  your  vote^  and  I  still  feel  it,  be^ 
cause  as  you  were  a  customer  of  mine,  and  the  purchaser 
and  user  of  good  liquor,  it  struck  me  as  not  the  moat  sincere 
or  just  thing  in  the  world  for  you  to  claim  great  merit  as  a 
friend  of  temperance  in  voting  for  a  law  that  merely  cut  off 
poorer  men  than  yourself,  but  did  not  infringe,  materially, 
your  own  indulgence,  except  that  you  would  have  to  send  t» 
the  store  rather  Idrger  yxgs  than  usual. 

I  could  not,  and  do  not  suppose,  you  were  as  ready  to  cut 
off  your  own  supplies  as  those  of  others;  for  so.  long  as  I  have 
been  your  neighbor,  1  have  never  known  you  refuse  a  tem- 
perate glass,  and  I  take  it  that  you  are  quite  as  much  opposed 
to  a  law  that  woud  put  it  out  or.youf  power  to  fill  your  jugs 
or  casks  or  wine  bottles,  as  others  are  to  this  law  which  is 
meant  to  prevent  their  buying  in  any  less  quantity. 

Permit  me,  therefore,  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fact,  that 
since  the  year,  you  became  a  teuiperance  legislator,  votmg  for 
and  supporting  laws  aimed  against  tlic  class  you  suppose  below 
yourself,  you  have  yourself,  though  temperate  1  duubt  not  ill 


8 

your  habits,  bought  much  more  thail  yoar/aiV  proportion  of 
the  alcohol  imported  into  this  State. 

On  looking  to  my  books  I  find  thai  if  one  fifth  of  the  pop- 
ulation of  Massachusetts  had  used  as  much  whiskey,  rumj 
brandy,  and  wine  as  you  have  put  into  your  jugs  at  my  storo, 
since  183G,  and  the  other  four  fifths  of  the  population  had 
not  used  a  drop,  there  would,  notwithstanding,  have  been 
required  an  importation  into  the  State  of 

Irish  Whiskey,       ------       24,800  gallons 

Jamaica  Rum, 248,000       " 

Cognac  Brandy, 372,000       " 

Sherry,  Port  and  Madeira,    -     -       1,012,000       " 


2,256  800  gallons. 

Equal  to  20,516  puncheons  of  110  gallons  each,  Nor  is 
this  all  the  share  you  claim  in  that  you  deny  by  force  of  law 
to  otheris,  with  as  good  appetite,  but  less  means  than  yourself 
Of  the  quaniity  bought  for  cash  during  the  same  time,  which 
is  not  inconsiderable,  I  took  no  account,  and  besides  all  tlii^, 
you  had,  (and  probably  now  have  in  part,)  in  your  cellar  a 
choice  supply  of  French  wines,  collected  by  yourself  while 
in  France  ;  a  supply  so  ample  that  you  stated  to  yoiir  neigh- 
bors you  had  had  some  hundreds  of  bottles  stolen  from  your 
cellar  the  last  winter,  and  that  too,  wiiile  you  were  advocating 
the  new  Law  at  the  Senate  Board.  ^ 

I  relate  these  facts,  not  to  upbraid  you,  but  as  a  consolation 
to  yourself  and  th'e  like  overzealous  friends  of  temperance 
who  are  so  greatly  alarmed  attlie  progress  of  drinking  among 
the  middling  and  laboring  classes,  but  have  no  fears  for  them- 
selves and  the  good  society  people.  You  will  perceive.  Sir, 
that  if  so  much  has  fallen  to  your  share,  and  you  are  not  only 
a  temperate  man,  but  an  advocate  of  laws  to  protect  other 
meo  from  themselves,  you  have  much  less  cause  to  bo  alarm- 
ed on  account  of  other  people  than  you  apprehended.  If 
you  can  keep  sober  with  all  these  temptations  aroimd  you  at 
home,  you  umy  surely  console  yourself  in  tlie  hope  that  others 
can  resist  the  temptations  abroad. 


9 

Yoa  must  excuse  me  therefore,  for  having  expressed  my 
surprise  that  you  who  were  so  liberal  to  yourself  in  these  mat- 
ters, should  insist  upon  a  law  which  still  left  all  this  indul- 
gence to  yourself,  but  was  aimed  to  take  it  away  from  others. 
I  have  always  been  accustomed  to  plain  dealing,  and  been 
taught  to  doubt  the  sincerity  of  that  precept,  which  was  not 
enforced  by  example,  or  of  that  philanthropy  which  exacts 
self-denial  only  in  cases,  where  it  has  no  inclination  itself  to 
indulgence.  I  must  therefore,  be  allowed  to  say,  that  whea 
I  see  gentlemen  like  yourself,  making  great  professions,  de- 
nouncing liquor  dealers  and  passing  laws  to  reach  the  poor 
man's  cup  but  not  to  touch  their  own,  I  cannot  help  thinking 
that  they  are  more  in  love  with  popularity  than  abstinence, 
and  are  of  the  sect  of  saints  described  in  Hudibras,  who 

"  Conpound  for  sins  they  are  inclined  to, 
IJy  damning  those  they  have  no  mind  to." 

As  you  identify  me  with  the  App6al  to  the  people  of  Massa- 
chusetts, it  is  only  necessary  for  me  to  say  that  my  sentiments 
on  this  question  are  there  set  forth,  and  I  have  not  yet  seen 
those  ar  Mjments  fairly  answered,  or  in  the  least  refuted. 

I  propose  now  to  take  the  measure  of  your  Fifteen  Gallon 
Jug,  and  should  any  thixig  be  said  which  you  may  complain  of 
as  throwing  stones  at  the  glass  in  your  own  windows,  you 
will  recollect  I  did  not  send  Ihe  first  missile.  I  am  only  pick- 
ing, up  and  tossing  back  what  you  have  thrown  through  rny 
wiridows  to  disturb  my  domestic  quiet.  I  have  not  sought 
notoriety  ia  any  form,  have  not  mingled  in  any  religious  or 
political  controversies,  have  claimed  no  merit  as  a  moral  re- 
former, and  no  votes  as  a  candidate  for  office  ;  but  have  tried 
to  do  my  duty,  with  a  conscience  void  of  offence,  in  the  hum- 
ble place  which  I  hold  in  society  ;  and  while  my  occupation 
is  not  at  variance  with  the  christian  religion,  or  the  customs 
of  the  great  christian  world,  I  shall  consider  it,  if  rightly  pur- 
sued, as  no  moie  depriving  me  of  the  rights  and  privileges  of 
a  good  citizen,  than  yotir  occupation  of  fabricating  Stories 
(and  I  fear  in  more  than  one  sense)  should  you. 

Your  NEIGHBOR  SMITH. 

To  my  neighbor  Parley. 


LETTER   II. 

■  In  youT  second  letter,  you  profess  to  inquire  whether  "the 
late  license  law  is  incompatible  with  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States.'' 

We  need  not  spend  a  great  deal  of  time  on  this  question^ 
and  a  man  of  common  sense,  who  never  wrote  a  book,  can 
understand  it  just  as  well  as  a  great  or  little  author.  You 
say  that  you  beleive  me  to  be  a  straight-forward  man,  who 
would  not  be  guilty  of  fraud  or  chicanery,  I  can  hardly 
return  the  complment,  when  I  see  how  you  have  treated  this 
part  of  the  argument.  You  affirm  that  "  the  authors  of  the 
Appeal  say  that  their  present  efforts  aim  at  the  repeal  of  the 
neiv,  and  the  re-enacting  of  (fie  old  license  law.'"  This  you 
quote  as  the  language  of  the  Appeal,  when  there  is  no  siuii 
language  and  no  such  sentiment  in  it.  You  assume,  also, 
that  the  Appeal  denies  the  power  of  a  State  to  regulate  inter- 
nal commerce  between  ita  citizens.  On  the  contrary,  the 
A.ppeal  declares  that  "  the  United  States  Constitution  inter 
feres  with  no  sumptuary  law  of  a  State,  however  outrageous 
aad  arbitrary."  The  State  may  say  what  books  may  be  pub- 
lished and  read,  just  as  well  as  what  liquor  may  be  sold  or 
drank,  and  the  United  States  Constitution  has  no  concern 
with  it. 

The  argument  drawn  from  the  power  of  Congress  to  regu- 
late commerce,  as  I  understand  it,  is  this : — The  Constitution 
and  laws  of  the  United  States  authorize  the  importation  of  a 
certain  article  of  merchandize  into  the  States.  With  the 
quantities  in  which  the  importation  shall  be  made,  with  its 
sale  by  the  importer,  and  with  its  incorporation  into  the  mass 
of  the  property  of  the  citizens,  the  State  cannot  interfere. — 
The  State,  therefore,  cannot  pass  a  law  to  prohibit  the  sale^ 
or  to  rquire  the  importer  to  take  out  a  license  to  sell,  in 
whatever  quantities  Congress  says  the  article  may  beimport- 
edv    But  the  new  license  law  declares  that  no  person  sbaD 


11 

«sll,  For  ortllnaty  purposes,  in  less  quantities  than  fifteen  gal- 
Sons.  This  applies  to  importers  and  all  others ;  and  as  the 
5aws  of  Congress  do  now  authorize  the  importation  of  mixed 
liquors,  part  of  which  is  spirituous,'  in  quantities  less  than 
fifteen  gallons,  the  license  law,  in  that  particular  is  a  viola- 
lion  of  the  letter  of  the  constitution  of  the  United  States ; 
and  as  its  aim  is  to  prevent  importation  by  prohibiting  sale, 
its  whole  tenor  is  a  violation  of  the  spirit  of  the  constitution, 
and  a  dishonorable  evasion  of  the  constitutional  compact^ 
"which  gives  to  Congress  the  regulation  of  commerce.  If  a 
State  can  evade  a  cession  of  power  to  Congress  in  this  way, 
"why  not  evade  the  compact  on  slavery,  or  on  any  other  matter 
of  compromise?  Should  the  next  Congress  authorize  all  ar- 
tlents  to  be  imported  in  less  quantities  than  fifteen  gallons, 
then  the  law  would  be  wholly  unconstilu'ional,  for  it  makes 
no  distinction  in  favor  of  the  importer,  but  prohibitS'the  sale* 
by  any  and  every  citizen.  In  the  event  of  collision,  the  law 
.of  the  Slate  must  yield  to  the  law  of  Congress ;  and  yet  the 
law  of  the  State  is  expressly  designed  to  make  the  law  of 
Congress  unavailing,  and  of  no  use  to  the  citizen. 

Now,  without  consulting  any  lawyer  or  any  author,  I  want 
to  hold  you,  if  you  can  he  held  to  anything,  to  this  one  point 
that  the  laws  of  the  State  cannot  prevent  the  introduction 
into  such  State,  of  this  article  of  merchandize,  in  such  quan- 
tities as  Congress  prescribes;  cannot  prevent  its  actual  sale,. 
In  such  quantities,  to  the  citizens  of  the  State  ;  tind  cannot 
prevent  or  obstruct  its  incorporation  into  the  mass  of  property. 

Judge  Story  goes  farther  than  this,  and  says,  that '  what- 
ever restrains  or  prevents  the  introduction  or  importation  of 
goods  into  the  country,  authorized  and  allowed  by  Congress, 
whether  in  the  shape  of  a  tax  or  other  charge,  or  whether 
before  or  after  their  arrival  in  port,  interferes  with  the  exclu- 
sive right  of  Congress  to  regulate  commerce.'  And  he  adds, 
"there  is  no  diflference,  in  effect,  between  the  power  to  pro- 
hibit the  sale  of  an  article,  and  to  prohibit  its  introduction  into 
^e  country.  None  would  b«  imported,  if  none  could  be 
cold.' 


12 

This  looks  to  me  like  common  sense  and  common  honesty 
How  do  you  and  your  law  square  with  it  ?  You  are  compel- 
led to  admit  that  you  cannot  prohibit  the  introduction  and  sale, 
in  any  quantity  Congress  allows,  by  the  importer.  He  brings 
it  on  the  good  faith  of  public  laws  and  constitutions  ;  pays 
the  duties,  and  offers  to  sell  it.  You  then  step  in  with  your 
law  and  say,  that  no  citizen  shall  sell  with  or  without  license, 
under  fifteen  gallons.  You  thus  assume  to  prohibit  the  sale, 
when  you  know  you  cannot  prohibit  the  introduction,  and 
thus,  according  to  Judge  Story,  you  in  effect  do  prohibit  in- 
troduction, by  denying  sale.  Even  if  you  let  the  importer 
sell,  you  then  step  in  and  confiscate  the  property  in  the  hands 
of  him  who  buys,  by  declaring  it  shall  go  no  further. 

To  my  notion,  this  is  very  much  of  a  '  striped  pig '  sort  of 
operation,  unworthy  a  dignified  and  high-minded  Legislature. 
It  is  a  small  kind  of  chicanery,  and  indirectly  annuls  the  laws 
of  Congress,  which  the  State  dares  not  do  openly.  It  proves 
that  the  law  is  founded  in  chicanery,  and  quibble,  and  subter- 
fuge, and  is  intended  indirectly  to  deprive  the  citizen  of 
rights  it  dare  not  take  from  him  boldly.  We  agree,  then,  on 
both  sides,  that  there  is  no  power  to  get  rid  of  the  importa- 
tion and  mixing  up  of  this  article  with  the  mass  of  property. 

Let  me  now  correct  a  few  of  your  very  crude  notions  on 
other  points.  You  talk  of  foreign  rags  loaded  with  cholera> 
and,  ask  whence  comes  the  right  of  a  State  to  pass  health 
laws?  And  this  right  you  find  in  '  necessity,  which  knows 
no  law !"  Profound  Peter !  illustrious  expounder  !  If  the 
awyer  you  employed  to  write  down  the  constitutional  argu- 
ment in  the  Appeal,  gave  you  this  information,  he  ought  not 
to  have  considered  himself  any  lawyer  at  all.  The  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  will  tell  you,  that  "  the  laws  of 
the  United  States  expressly  sanction  the  quarantine  and  other 
restraints  which  shall  be  required  and  established  by  the 
HEALTH  LAWS  of  any  State,  and  declare  that  they  shall  be 
observed  by  revenue  officers  ' 

Perhaps  it  is  not  strange,  neighbor,  that  you  should  mis- 
take so  cgregiously  in  your  law,  as  I  take  it  you  did  in  fact 


13 

coti^lt  nobody  but  yourself,  and  in  that  case,  you  know,  the 
proverb  say^,  that  Ihe  man  Who  is  his  own  lawyer  generally 
has  a  fool  for  his  client.  But  I  am  surprised,  that,  after  intro- 
ducing into  your  own  family,  from  my  store,  so  many  jugs  of 
firdents,  to  say  nothiRg  of  the  French  wines  now  in  your 
cellar,  selected  in  your  late  travels,  you  should  compare  the 
article  to  tainted  hides  or  infesled  i-ags.  The  one  is  a  physi- 
cal pestilence,  a  pubiic  nuisance;  bat  even  the  power  to  ex- 
clude a  cargo  of  infected  rags,  depends  upon  the  express 
sanction  of  Congress.  Should  a  State  prohibit  the  sale  of 
rags  or  hides,  in  les's  than  fifteen  bales  at  a  time,  would  such 
a  law  be  anything  less  than  a  restriction  upon  those  articles 
vC  importation  ?  Health  laws  and  police  laws  apply  to  partic- 
ular exceptions  from  general  rules.  Rags  and  hides  are  ad- 
mitted as  a  general  article  of  merchandise  ;  but  if  a  particular 
cargo  be  infected,  it  is  put  under  quarantine.  It  is  a  direct 
physical  evil,  not  a  remote  and  consequential  moral  evil, 
which  health  and  police  laws  guard  against. 

As  to  the  old  law,  I  care  not  whether  it  was  right  or  wrong. 
That  does  not  make  this  law  right.  But  a  child  can  see  the 
difference.  The  old  law  did  not  assume  to  abolish  the  sale 
in  any  quantity,  It  regulated  it.  The  new  law  assumes  to 
abolish  the  sale,  and  make  it  a  crime,  under  a  certain  quan- 
tity. Your  argument,  that  the  Commissioners,  in  some  coun- 
ties, did  not  license  under  the  old  law,  applies  to  the  admin- 
istration of  the  law,  by  certain  judges,  in  the  exercise  of 
their  discretion  ;  whether  right  or  wrong,  is  another  ques- 
tion The  old  law  declared  that  no  person  should  "presume 
to  be  a  retailer,"  that  is,  to  exercise  a  certain  trade,  unless 
licensed  ;  and,  by  creating  Commissioners  to  license  lliis 
trade,  the  law  implied  that  it  was  to  be  done,  (/onsequently, 
it  regulated  a  certain  trade,  but  did  not  deny  the  absolute 
right  to  sell  property  lawfully  acquired,  as  the  new  law  does. 
If  you  ever  read  the  memorials  for  the  new  law,  you  must 
have  seea  that  prohibition  and  penal  acts  were  asked  for. 
Your  NEIGHBOR  SMITH. 

To  my  Neighbor  Parlet.  (2) 


LETTER    III. 

13  TUE  LAWS  AGAINST  THE     STATE  CONSTITUTE OKAt* 

The  conclusion  to  which  1  think  I  brought  the  argument 
in  my  last  letter,  was  that  the  new  law  if  not  as  a  whole,  pal- 
pably a  violation  of  the  U.  S*  Constitution,  is  a  small,  cunning 
and  trickey  evasion  of  its  spirit  and  meanings  and  a  violation 
of  public  faith,  disreputable  to  a  high  minded  Legislature. 

Your  third  letter  is  given  to  the  inquiry  "  whtther  the  lA- 
cense  Law  is  compatible  viith  the  Constitution  of  this  Common- 
wealth." This  requires  a  short  answer.  I  ask  you  if  this  ar- 
ticle of  meichandize  which  is  protected  by  theU.  States  laws- 
in  its  importation  and  incorporation  into  the  mass  of  property 
in  a  State,  is  or  is  not  property  ?  Have  you  a  property  in  the 
choice  French  wines  in  your  cellar,  or  in  the  contents  of  the 
"Jugs  "  you  have  so  often  had  filled  with  good  liquor? 

What  then  is  essential  to  tliis  right  of  property.  Is  it  not 
the  right  of  transfer  ?  What  would  you  say  of  your  right  of 
property  in  your  own  books,  if  the  Legislature  should  make 
it  a  penal  offence  for  you,  or  any  bookseller,  to  sell  in  less 
than  fifteen  copy  rights  at  a  time  ?  Or  if  it  should  enact  that 
not  less  than  fifteen  copies  should  be  sold  for  any  purpose 
except  to  paper  trunks  and  do  up  apothecary's  prescriptions  ? 
Is  not  the  right  of  property  as  absolute  in  one  case  as  in  the 
other.  The  Legislature  may  regulate  occupations  and  trades, 
but  it  cannot  confiscate  properly  in  the  hands  of  its  citizens, 
or  take  from  the  whole,  or  any  portion  of  it,  the  only  quality 
which  gives  it  essential  value  ;  the  right  of  transfer  and  sale 
for  all  the  ordinary  uses  to  which  it  may  be  put.  Your  law 
takes  from  a  specific  property  ;  an  article  of  merchandize  and 
lawful  possessions  ;  tlie  most  absolute  and  essential  qualifica- 
tion of  property.  If  you  can  destroy  this  right,  absolutely, 
as  to  a  specific  portion  of  lawful  property,  you  can  do  it  as  to 
the  whole  ;  and  if  to  one  article  of  merchandize,  then  to  all. 

The  distinction  between  all  former  and  the  present  license 
laws,  which  you  do  not  seem  to  be  capable  of  comprehending, 
or  which  you  conceal  if  you  do;  is  just  this  as  I  understand 
it.    The  old  law  regulatoe  occupation^ and  employment.    It 


15 

says  "  no  person  shall  presume  to  be  a  retailer  or  sellen  of 
wine,  brandy,  rum  or  other  spirituous  liquors,  in  a  less  quan- 
tity than  twenty  eight  gallons,  unless  he  is  first  licensed  as  a 
retailer,"  This,  like  the  restrictions  on  pedlars  &c.  relates 
to  the  trade  or  occupation,  and  however  arbitrary  or  unjust 
laws  may  be  taxing  trades  and  occupations,  I  suppose  the 
Legislature  may  have  the  power  to  pass  them,  but  if  they  are 
manifestly  unjust,  the  people  will  at  once  repeal  them.  Mere 
might  does  not  make  right.  But  your  law  is  founded  on  mere 
might,  without  any  right  at  all,  and  makes  the  State  Consti- 
tution mean  nothing.    I  will  tell  you  why. 

Your  new  license  law  introduces  a  principle,  unheard  of 
before  in  any  laws  except  the  blue  laws,  or  the  Spanish  laws 
of  monopoly.     It  says  that  *  no  person  shall  sell  any  brandy 
rum  or  other  spirituous  liquors,  or  any  mixed  liquor  part  of 
which  is  spirituous,  in  a  less  quantity  than  fifteen  gallons.' 

The  law  thus  absolutely  prohibits  the  right  of  sale  of  a  par- 
ticular description  of  property.  It  does  not  merely  restrict 
its  sale  by  certain  persons,  but  annuls  it  altogether  for  ordi- 
nary uses.  Il  declares  that  the  citizen  shall  not  sell  it,  and 
that  no  person  shall  be  allowed  to  sell  it  for  him,  thus  direct- 
ly confiscaling  tliis  property  in  his  hands,  and  depriving  it  of 
the  most  essential  quality  of  property. 

Now  then  what  says  the  State  Constitution  ;  for  remember 
here  is  property,  lawfully  iiuported,  lawfully  acquired  and 
mixed  up  with  the  mass  of  property.  What  will  you  do  with 
it?  How  single  it  out  and  proscribe  it  except  under  general 
'standing  laws,  which  apply  to  all  the  rights  of  property. 

The  Constitution  of  the  Slate,  says,  firsts  that  among  our 
unalienable  rights,  is  'tha  right  of  acquiring,  possessing 
and  protecting  property.' 

In  the  second  place,  it  says,  «ach  individual  shall  be  pro- 
tected by  society  in  the  enjoyment  of  his  life,  liberty,  and 
properly,  according  to  standing  laws,  and  no  part  of  the  prop- 
erty of  any  individual  can  be  taken  from  him  by  the  Legis- 
lature, without  a  reasonable  compensation. 

It  would  seem,  then,  very  plain,  that  a  law  which  absolutely 
Eod  directly  deprives  property  of  its  sole  qualification  of 


16 

value,  by  denying  to  it  the  right  of  sale,  eilher  by  its  owner 
or  through  any  other  person,  ia  a  law  taking  away  a  part  of 
the  property  of  a  citizen,and  deprives  him  of  the  enjoyment 
of  that  part  of  his  property  which  is  secured  to  him  by  the 
constitution. 

The  exception  to  this,  in  the  new  law,  which  permits  apoth- 
ecaries and  doctors  to  sell  for  a  specific  use,  is  more  arbitrary 
than  the  law  itself. 

It  sets  up,  in  the  first  place,  a  particular  profession,  to 
which  is  given  the  monopoly  of  traffic  in  a  particular  descrip- 
tion of  mercliandise.  It  does  not  merely  regulate  occupation 
and  trade,  by  requiring  licenses  or  appointing  officers  with 
discretionary  powers  as  to  what  citizen  shall  have  the  license  ; 
but  it  enacts  outright,  that  a  certain  learned  profession  shall 
have  the  exclusive  profit  of  this  trade.  All  who  now  use  the 
trade  are  excluded,  even  from  selling  it  for  medicine  and  the 
a.ts.  Is  not  this  an  unjust  proscription  of  a  whole  class  of 
citizens.'  A  man  must  qualify  himself  to  be  a  j^iysician  or 
apothecary,  before  he  can  buy  this  privilege,  not  of  exercis- 
ing his  profession,  but  of  vending  for  the  arts  an  article  of 
profit,  hitherto  never  sold  as  a  part  of  the  stock  of  an  apotli- 
ecary's  shop  or  a  doctor's  saddle-bags:  and  he  must  have, 
besides,  two  thousand  constituents ;  quite  enougli  to  make  a 
Senator,  before  he  is  fully  qualified. 

Further  than  this;  your  law,  after  violating  the  spirit  of 
the  constitution,  by  enacting  that  a  certain  profession  or  asso- 
ciation of  men,  called  doctors  and  apothecaries,  shall  have 
the  ^'^  particulm' and  exclusive  privilege,  (Wst'mct  (rom  the  rest 
of  the  community,''  of  trading  in  a  particular  article  of  uni- 
versal property  ;  undertakes  to  say  for  what  particular  use, 
and  no  other,  tliis  property  shall  be  sold,  even  by  this  privi- 
leged class. 

If  you  can  inake  the  common  sense  of  the  common-school 
educated  people  of  Massachusetts,  satisfied  that  such  a  law 
is  no  infringement  of  our  Bill  of  Rights,  you  can  convince 
them,  just  as  well,  that  ihere  is  no  Bill  of  Rights  at  all,  except 
in  the  omnipotent  will  or  caprice  of  the  Leirislature. 

There  are   other  general  provisions  of  the   constitution 


17 

wWch  iHis  law  inrringes)  but  I  think  this  one  argument 
enough.  So  much  for  the  incompatibility  of  your  law  with 
the  Slate  constitution.  Now  for  some  of  your  imported  no- 
lions  on  this  subject  of  equal  rights  and  equal  laws. 

To  get  over  the  pinching  charge,  that  this  law  is  designed 
only  to  restrain  the  poor,  while  it  leaves  the  rich  to  free 
indulgence,  you  assume  that  the  article  can  be  sold  for  all 
good  and  salutary  purposes,  by  the  thimble  full  ;  that  is,  by  a 
particular  profession.  You  then  add; — "But  it  is  used  for 
purposes  destructive  to  health  and  life  ;  it  is  used  in  a  manner 
to  increase  pauperism,  to  inflame  bad  passions  and  promotCi 
Krime.  It  is  used  in  a  manner  to  become  a  pestilent  disturber 
of  the  peace  of  society.  Thus  it  is  rendered  dangerous  to 
tJie  community,  The  partictdar  wa^  in  which  this  danger 
arises,  is  in  Us  being  sold  as  a  drink  under  fifteen  gallonsJ'^ 

This  is  your  language ;  and  what  does  it  say  ?  Why,  that 
all  the  pauperism,  all  the  bad  passions,  all  the  crime,  all  the 
breaches  of  the  peace,which  spring  from  intoxication,are  found 
in  that  class  of  citizens  who  cannot  well  buy  fifteen  gallons 
at  one  time  !  Your  whole  reliance  on  your  new  law  to  make 
men  sober,  is  that  it  will  prevent  this  class  from  buying, 
while  the  simple  fact  that  a  man  can  buy  fifteen  gallons,  is  a 
sufficient  guarantee  that  he  will  not  produce  pauperism,  crime, 
or  riot  in  the  community !  He  may  sip  and  soak  at  home  or 
at  his  neighbor's  house  as  much  as  he  likes.  There  is  no 
danger  of  drunkards  only  from  those  who  buy  by  little. 

For  this  flattering  estimate  of  the  moral  character  of  a  very 
large  portion  of  your  constituents,  you  sit  ru  state  in  your 
castle  of  Rockland,  at  the  head  of  a  luxurious  dinner  party, 
surrounded  by  your  select  French  wines,  and  ask  the  people 
to  make  you  a  grave  and  reverend  Senator,  tfiat  you  may  put 
further  restrictions  upon  their  appetites  for  the  good  of  their 
souls !  You,  to  be  sure,  are  safe,  but  your  poorer  Tieighbors 
must  be  protected  against  their  own  appetites!  Perhaps  they 
may  vote  for  you,  and  thank  you  for  this  paternal  guardian- 
ship over  their  moral  agency.    I  shall  do  neither. 

I  have  seen,  in  another  publication,  attributed,  by  some,  to 
.     2* 


you,  this  sdnteiico,  in  exact  keepfing'  with  t!ie  foregoing  dls^ 
paragement  of  the  men  of  moderate  means  : 

"  It  seema  a  littfe  hard,  that  the  poof  country  people  cannot 
be  allowed  to  pass  a  law  to  protect  theihsehes  against  being 
first  BESOTTED,  and  then  ruined." 

So  it  seems,  that  the  "  poor  country  people,"  that  is,  all 
those  who  cannot  conveniently  buy  fifteen  gallons  at  a  timcy 
as  you  can,  are  so  given  to  drunkenness,  that,  if  they  can  get 
at  rum  at  all,  (hey  are  sure  to  become,  first  besotted,  and  then 
ruined ! 

Is  .tnother  wor^  necessary  to  show  (hat  this  law  of  yours 
had  its  origin  in  utter  contempt  for  the  decency,"  the  rrroralsj 
and  the  Capacity  of  the  common  people  ? 

Vou  bring  in  laws  rotating  to  the  fire  department,  as  to 
the  m2.terfal  of  which  houses  are  to  be  built,  and  urge  it  as  a 
parallel  case,  when  these  are  mere  matters  of  px)lice,  and 
relate  io  physical,  not  moral  evils  and  dangers.  Show  me'  a 
law  which  forbids  a  poor  man  to  build  any  house  at  all,  or 
from  hiring  any  house,  unless  he  is  able  to  pay  a  certain'  renty 
and  you  will  then  haVe  a  parallel  case.  No  other  law  but 
this,  prevents  any  citizen  enjoying  what  another  can,  in  exact 
proportion  to  his  mean^. 

You  deny  that  this  is  a  sumptuary  law,  and  your  reason,  if 
I  understand  it,  is  this  :  that  it  does  not  profess  to  restrain  the 
appetites  and  luxuries  of  the  rich,  only  the  poor.  True,  it  is 
a  sumptuary  law  at  the  wrong  end.  But  that  it  is  such,  you 
have  the  declaration  of  Chancellor  I^ent,  who  considered  the 
law  with  reference  to  the  United  States  constitution  only, 
but  with  no  reference  to  the  State  constittition.    He  says  . 

"  The  sumptuary  laio  in  question  falls  within  the'  cognizance 
of  the  State  governments.  The  States  may  pass  what  sump- 
tuary laws  they  please,  in  restraint  of  the  manners  and  habits 
of  the  residents  therein.  All  such  regulations,  howevei  stem 
they  may  be,  rest  entirely  on  the  wisdom  and  sense  of  expe- 
diency of  the  local  legislature,  provided  they  be  consistent 
with  the  constitution  of  the  State-" 

That  is  the  question,  and  i  have  endeavored  to  give  the 
answer  in  this  reply  to  your  third  letter. 

Your  NEIGHBOR  SMITH. 

To  iny. Neighbor  Parlet. 


LETTER  iV. 
Moral  means  or  force  laws. 

Your  fourth  letter  seems  intended  to  consider  which  of 
these  means  are  best  adapted  to  promote  temperance.  But 
you  state  the  argument  of  the  opponents  of  the  force  law 
unjustly.  You  put  into  their  mouths  positions  nevef  assumed 
by  them,  namely,  that  '•  moral  means  are  the  only  propef 
means  for  the  suppression  of  intemptrance  ;  and  that  the  reg-' 
ulation  of  inlempefanee  ought  to  be  left  to  public  opinioui" 
Do  you  know  the  meaning  of  the  word  "intemperance"?  Is 
temperance  total  abstinence  ? 

These  "  trite  dogmas,''  you  add,  '*  have  acquired  \heJlavor 
x>f  slangy  "Then,  Sir,  it  is  the  flavor  of  youf  own  slang,  for 
iio  one  else  ever  used  this  as  an  argument.  Inteniperancej 
drunkenness,  is  declared  a  crime^  and  is  punished  as  such  by 
express  law.  No  good  citizen  objects  to  that  law*  Wherevei* 
the  offence  is  committed,  the  law  punishes  it,  in  this  as  in  all 
other  cases  of  an  act  which  is  in  itself  a  crime  or  an  offence, 

Where  you  learnt  the  distinction  between  crime  and  offence^ 
which  you  set  up  with  such  apparently  profound  legal  science, 
1  have  been  unable  to  discoveri  Wherever  a  penalty  is  at- 
tached to  an  act,  as  a  punishment,  that  act  is  a  crime  or  a 
misdemeanor.  Mere  injuries  are  remedied  by  compensation 
in  damages ;  but  whenever  the  Legislature  undertakes  to 
repress  or  prevent  any  act  by  the  terror  of  punishment,  then 
that  act  is  made  a  crime.  I  am  told  that  any  law  student 
who  has  read  Blackstone,  would  have  informed  you  that  any 
act  committed  or  omitted,  in  violation  of  the  public  law,  either 
forbidding  or  commanding  it,  is  a  crime  or  misdemeanor. 

There  are  eight  chapters  in  the  Revised  Statutes,  headed 
"  Offences,"  and  every  one  of  them  is  made  a  crime  by  law, 
including  drunkenness  as  one.  Where  did  you  get  your  dis* 
tinction  ? 

Why,  friend  Peter,  you  were  yeurself,  I  believe,  on  the 
committee  that  reported  this  law,  and  you  there  say  in  the 
Report,  '*the  proposition  submitted  to  the  Legislature  is, 
that  aU  laws,  authorizing  the  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors,  may 
bo  repealed,  and  that  such  side  may  be  made  penal"  On  this 
basis  the  new  law  was  founded. 

And  now  you  undertake  to  say,  in  your  letters  to  me,  that 
"  this  law  punishes  its  violation  as  an  offnice^  and  not  as  a 
criTTie"!  a  distinction  which  ycu  affirm  is  well  understood  by 
lawyers.  Was  it  ignorance,  then,  or  intentional  deception, 
that  induced  you,  with  such  assurance,  to  charge  upon  the 
"  Appeal"  for  affirming  that  the  license  law  "punishes  as  a 
crime"  " one  of  those  artifices,  which  one,  knowing  its  baat- 
ness,  does  nA  use  without  a  sinister  design"  ? 


20 

The  question,  then,  ia  not  as  you  put  it  in  your  foufth  let- 
ter, whether  there  shall  be  no  law  to  punish  intemperance  of 
drunkenness,  but  il  is  whether  there  shall  be  a  law  to  enforce, 
by  pains,  penalties,  and  imprisonment,  the  extreme  self-denicU 
fyj"  TOTAL  AB3TiNE.\CE  ;  especially  when  that  law  is  to  be 
framed  so  as  only  to  compel  the  poor  to  abstain,  while  the 
rich  are  to  be  indulged  as  freely  as  ever.  This  simple  state- 
ment of  ihe  true  question,  answers  your  whole  argument  on 
this  head,  because  it  shows  your  premises  to  be  falsely  as- 
sumed. Your  inferences  are  not  less  so ;  for,  afler  contend- 
ing that  the  mere  aale  or  use  of  spirits  is  nol  a  crime,  and 
defending  the  law  against  such  a  construction,  you  then  go 
on  to  justify  this  very  law,  as  standing  on  the  same  ground 
as  laws  against  theft,  robbery,  murder,  and  the  like  ;  in  short, 
all  "statutes  to  restrain  vice  and  crime." 

When  you  can  find  a  law  against  one  man  owning  or 
showing  property,  lest  it  should  be  stolen,  or  carrying  money 
about  his  person,  lest  he  should  be  robbed  or  murdere-i,  then 
bring  them  up  as  parallel  to  this  law,  which  assumes  to  pu7»- 
ish,  not  an  act  injurious  to  society,  but  to  prohibit  and  punish 
the  transfer  of  an  article  o\'  merchandise,  lawfully  incorpo- 
rated into  the  mass  of  property,  lest  he  who  buys  it  should 
make  a  wrong  use  of  it. 

You  cannot  stand  on  any  such  doctrine  as  this.  No  law, 
since  we  had  a  constitution,  was  ever  put  upon  such  a  loun- 
dalion,  namely,  to  punish  in  one  citizen  the  possible  bad  ten- 
dencies of  his  lawful  act  in  another.  Why  not  punish  you 
for  keeping  choice  wines  in  your  cellar;  for  filling  your  jugs, 
whether  over  or  under  fifteen  gallons;  for  drinking  Cham- 
paigne  at  dinner  parties ;  or  for  any  act  which  tends  to  incite 
the  appetite  or  promote  the  custom  of  drinking  intoxicating 
liquors,  in  private  houses  or  social  intercourse  ?  In  short, 
why  not  punish  every  citizen  who  does  not  totally  abstain 
from  the  use  of  intoxicating  beverages  ? 

If  you  are  prepared  to  go  this  length,  without  which  your 
law  will  prove  useless,  in  its  professed  object,  then  the  peo- 
ple vvill  be  prepared  to  prevent  such  invasions  of  every  inalien- 
able right  derived  from  nature  and  secured  by  the  constitu- 
tion. If  you  are  not  prepared  to  go  this  length,  then  retrace 
your  steps,  and  bring  the  laws  on  this  question  back  to  the 
old  principle  of  regulation,  not  prohibition ;  and  not  attempt 
to  force  virtue  by  penal  enactments  on  the  assumption  that 
you  will  punish  one  citizen  for  doing  a  lawful  act,  lest  anotii- 
er  should  commit  a  crime. 

A  hardware  merchant  in  this  city,  the  other  day,  sold  a 
pair  of  pistols,  powder  and  ball,  to  a  Southern  blood,  who 
walked  back  directly  to  the  Treraont  House,  and  fired  one  of 


21 

them  deliberately,  within  an  inch  of  another  man's  life.  Why 
not  petition  for  a  law  to  ptinish  the  sale  of  fire  arms  by  re- 
tail ?  Where  is  the  difference  ?  Your  fine  edifice,  beautiful 
grounds,  rich  upholstery,  may  tempt  a  poorer  man  to  incur 
an  expense  in  his  style  of  living  that  impels  him  to  crime. 
Shall  you  be  punislied  because  your  acts  or  your  example 
miorht  be  a  tendency  to  such  results  in  others! 

No  sir,  punish  crime  wherever  you  find  it.  Preserve  peace 
and  good  order  in  all  private  and  public  places,  so  far  as  the 
community  is  concerned.  Regulate  trades  and  occupations 
and  the  places  in  which  they  are  carried  on,  within  the  limits 
of  the  constitution,  for  the  public  good.  Break  up  all  disor- 
derly houses,  all  lawless  disturbances  of  good  neighborhoods, 
prohibit  and  punish  gambling,  lottery  dealing  and  lewdness, 
because-  in  themselves  crimes,  and  because  no  Supreme  law 
of  tiie  land  authorizes  their  importation  into  the  State,  and 
mixing  up  with  the  mass  of  property.  But  take  care  how 
you  deny  to  lawful  property  its  essential  ([uality  of  value,  aa/e ; 
or  how  you  punish  an  innocent  man  to  prevent  others  being 
guilty. 

Beyond  these  limits  you  cannot  go  to  enforce  by  law,  any 
moral  reform,  however  noble,  however  desirable.  Resort,  as 
all  moral  reforn-ers  who  were  not  persecutors  and  bigots, 
always  have  done  ;  to  reason  and  argument,  the  still  small 
voice  of  moral  suasion,  and  not  enforce  the  terror  of  the  law 
to  restrain  poor  men's  appetites.  Take  away  the  customers 
of  the  dealer  by  persuasion  and  example,  and  you  will  then 
have  no  occasion  to  resort  to  pains  and  penalties  against  a 
lawful  occupation,  or  to  brand  as  criminals,  citizens  as  up- 
right in  their  occupation  as  you  are  in  yours. 

Your  NEIGHBOR  SMITH. 

To  my  neighbor  Parlky. 


LETTER    V. 

13  THE  LAW  EXPEDIENT? 

The  fifih  and  last  of  your  letters  are  a  mere  repptition  of  those  that 
precede  tliem.  You  reason  in  a  circle.  First,  youadmit  that  the  new 
law  is  good  for  nothing,  unless  public  sentiment  will  sustain  it,  and 
then  you  contend  that  public  opinion  requires  to  he  fortified  by  the 
law.  'riiis  arguriient  niiiy  be  illus'rntcd  after  your  own  fashion  of 
tiie  story  of  ihe  drunken  man  converted  by  Parson  Becket.  That 
g-itne  individual,  en  another  occasion,  seized  hold  of  a  good  firm 
post,  exclaiming,  "  united  we  stand,"  but,  letting  go,  down  iie 
went,  with  "  divided  we  fall."  You  connect  your  law  with  public 
opinion  aa  the  drunken  man  did  the  luutu.tl  support  between  him 


22 

and  the  post.  Bat  it  is  only  your  law  that  will  tumble  down.  Pub- 
lic opinion  will  stand  firm. 

By  your  own  showing,  public  opinion  was  doing  all  that  reasona- 
ble men  could  expect  or  desire  in  this  moral  reform.  You  state  that, 
without  this  law,  "  five  out  of  twelve  counties  in  the  Stale," 
(there  are  fourteen)  have  dispensed  with  the  retail  trade  by  the 
force  of  public  opinion. 

Having  gained  this,  you  and  the  supporters  of  the  new  law, 
instead  of  rejoicing  in  this  success  and  continuing  in  well  doing, 
seem  to  have  resolved  to  carry  the  rest  of  the  Slate  by  a  sort  of 
conquest;  and  to  this  unfortunate  zeal  is  t*  be  attributed  the 
injury  done  to  the  cause  of  just  rights  as  well  as  to  the  moral  influ- 
ences of  the  cause  of  temperance,  by  urging  the  force  law  ;  a  law 
which  was  obviously  unnecessary,  and  therefore  inexpedient,  be- 
cause the  advance  of  the  practice  of  total  abstinence  was  as  rapid 
as  could  be  consistent  with  son  id  conviction,  on  which  alone  it  can 
stand  lor  any  length  of  time. 

The  great  injury  you  have  done  to  the  moral  cause  of  temperance 
by  this  unnecessary  and  inexpedient  law  to  force  it  beyond  public 
sentiment,  is  this:— Up  to  the  period  of  the  passage  of  that  law, 
there  was  no  opposition  to  the  temperance  movements.  The  whole 
community  entertained  no  distrust  of  teniperance  societies.  They 
apprehended  no  extraordinary  efforts  or  combinalions  oh  their  part, 
and  feared  no  infringement  of  fundamental,  constitntional  principle*. 

This  was  the  reason  thai  the  force  law  passed  so  readily  through 
the  Legislature.  It  met  with  no  great  opposition,  and  was  so  little 
discussed,  on  general  principles,  as  not  to  bring  out  the  stroncrest 
grounds  of  objection  to  it.  While  it  was  in  faci  a  question  of  prop- 
erty rights  and  personal  rights,  it  was  regarded  merely  as  a  question 
of  temperance.  Hence,  many  persons  honestly  voted  fir  it,  who 
as  honestly  will  be  satisfied,  on  looking  at  it,  that  it  is  of  doubtful 
right,  and  unnecessary  and   inexpedient. 

The  mere  fact  that  it  has  raised  so  strong  an  opposition,  and 
brought  out  so  many  of  the  firmest  of  the  original  supporters  of 
temperance  against  it,  is  ample  proof  that  it  has  done,  and  will  con- 
tinue to  do,  till  repealed,  more  harm  than  good.  The  friends  of 
temperance  are  divided  on  this  law.  The  party  that  had  the  control 
of  the  Legislature,  when  it  was  passed,  are  divi.^ed  on  it;  and,  what 
is  more,  tiiis  division  is  not  on  the  question  whether  temperance 
shall  or  shall  not  be  advanced,  but  whether  this  law  iii  not  unconsti- 
tutional, and  an  outrage  upon  equal  rights  and  fundamental  principltt»>. 

Thus  you  have  drawn  the  public  aside  from  the  true  issue,  and 
excited  the  alarm  of  the  community,  lest  this  first  step  in  putting  a 
tumpttiary  law  upon  the  statute  book,  should  lead  to  any  and 
every  infringement  of  private  riglit,  which  fanaticism  or  bigotry 
may  at  any  time  fancy  is  incompatible  with  the  success  of  a  causa 
of  moral  or  religious  reform. 

In  such  a  case,  there  should  be  no  possible  ground  for  doubt, 
To  say  that  such  a  law  is  of  doubtful  consliiulionaliiy,  doubtful 
aa  tu  expediency,  doubtful  as  to  the  principle  of  legiilation,  dotibt^ 


23 

fnl  as  to  pu'olic  senlinient,  and  doubtjul  as  to  it»  beneficial  effects 
On  the  cause  it  ia  intended  to  advance,  is  (each  and  every  one  of  the 
doabts)  a  sDflicieiit  reason  why  sach  a  law  should  never  have  been 
passed,  and  should  now  be  repealed. 


1  have  now  shaken  up,  and,  I  think,  emptied  out,  the  entire  con- 
tents of  your  ••  Fifteen  Gallon  Jug,"  and  sent  it  back  to  yon,  so 
cracked  as  to  be  of  no  further  use.  All  that  remains  is  the  sedi- 
ment of  your  personality. 

I  have  read  all  the  publications  on  your  side  of  the  question,  and 
most  of  the  papers  which  advocate  it,  and  in  no  controversy  I  ever 
heard  of,  baa  there  been  so  much  uncharitableness,  virulence,  vitu- 
peration, and  vu'gar  blackguard  applied  by  one  party  to  another,  as 
the  party  who  opiiold  this  law  have  heaped  upon  those  who  oppose 
it  ;  of  which  you  have  given  jour  full  share  in  the  contenls  of  your 
Jug.  For  instance,  here  are  a  siring  of  epithets  which  1  find  ap- 
plied by  thaj^portion  of  the  Whig  party  in  Boston  who  uphold  the 
law,  to  that  portion  who  oppose  it. 

"  Whig  liquor  dealers,  whose  inclination  to  deal  in  rum  is  more 
than  a  match  for  their  patriotism  ;  petty,  little  faction  ;  dictators  of 
the  party  ;  playing  a  deep  game  ;  preconcert,  manosuvering,  and 
fraud  ;  selfish  and  private  ends  ;  secresy  of  some  eastern  despotism; 
no  respact  for  the  (Whig)  committee  nor  any  confidence  in  it ; 
tainted  with  fraud,  treachery,  usurpation,  proscription,  and  favorit- 
ism ;  proscriptionists  ;  Rum  Whigs  and  Rumsellers  ;  btri- 

PID  PIG  LIQUOR  DEALERS  !" 

You  do  not  like  this  catalogue  ;  but  wherein  is  your  language 
better,  when  you  say  that  the  opponents  of  this  law  are  "  those  who 
seek  to  throw  down  the  wholesome  barriers  of  virtue,  and  extend 
the  spirit  of  licentiousness  "  ? 

You  kindly  caution  m«  against  the  company  in  which  you  say  I 
find  myself.  Whenever  I  am  associated  with  men  who,  like  these 
friends  and  supporters  of  yours,  and  like  yourself,  use  such  weapons 
as  arguments ,  to  advance  a  moral  cause,  1  will  thank  you  to  warn 
me,  as  I  now  do  you,  to  escape  from  such  contamination  as  quick 
B3  possible. 

And  how  much  more  charitable,  or  refined,  or  just,  is  your  own 
language,  when  you  say  of  a  large  class  of  your  fellow-citizens, 
including  myself,  that  they  "  ought  to  be  charged  in  account,  annu- 
ally, for  one  half  the  pauperism,  one  half  the  insanity,  one  half  the 
conflagrations,  one  half  the  suicides,  thefls,  murders,  and  rapes  of 
society," 

If  this  tirade  means  anything,  it  means  that  liquor  dealers  are 
responsible,  morally,  for  one  half  the  crimes  committed  by  thost 
who  buy  intoxicating  liquors.  In  that  event,  I  must  be  responsible 
for  one  half  of  your  sins,  and  I  ought  to  be  obliged  to  you  for  your 
eighborly  kindness  in  throwing  this  bur3en  from  your  own,  upcn 
my  shoulders.     The  fact  is,  I  do  not  remember  to  have  filled  any 


customer's  jjgs,  that  I  considered  any  less  able  to  t:ike  care  of 
himself  and  regulate  his  apputites,  than  I  did  you.  Yon  can  judn-u, 
then,  how  much  will  fall  to  my  share  of  the  crimes  of  my  cnslome'rs.' 

Oa  the  same  principle,  you  will  attach  to  banks  and  money- 
lenders, one  half  of  all  ihe  gamblintr,  and  all  the  vices  that  money« 
or  any  part  of  it,  has  been  n-sed  to  ptirpetrale.  You  will  also  fasten 
upon  ijie  whole  body  of  authors,  of  which  you  are  one,  one  half  of 
all  the  evils  and  mischiefs  that  have  been  incited  by  books  and 
pamphlets  ? 

But  if  the  seller  has  this  responsibility  to  assumu,  what  share 
mast  fall  upon  the  good-society  dhinker?  It  is  this  example, 
your  own  example  in  social  intercourse,  sucli  examples  as  were 
given  by  the  principal  framers  of  this  law,  in  the  festival  at  Fan. 
euil  Hall  the  oilier  day,  in  honor  of  a  distinguished  citizen ;  that  do 
more  to  countenance  intemperance  in  the  poorer  classes,  than  a 
hundred  liquor  dealers  do,  or  a  hundred  force  laws  could  ever  undo. 

Take,  then,  the  estimate  of  liie  proportion  I  have  shown  you 
have  purchased  since  1836,  and  then  tell  me,  what  proportion  of 
the  crimes  you  enumerate,  are  to  be  charged,  annually,  to  your 
private  account. 

Your  NEIGHBOR  SMITH. 

To  my  Neighbor  Parley. 

THE  CONGRATULATION. 

Let  me  now,  in  conclasion,  congratulate  you  upon  your  nomina- 
tion for  the  Senate  of  this  Commonwealth.  Your  fellow  citizens, 
especially  those  whom  you  declare  to  be  incapable  of  protecting 
themselves  against  becoming  sots,  without  your  paternal  legislation; 
will  now  have  the  opportunity  of  thanking  you  for  this  solicitude  in 
their  behalf.  Your  temperance  constituents,  also  ;  men  who  are  in 
uniform  practice,  as  well  as  precept,  temperate  in  all  things;  wilt 
now  be  enabled  to  show  their  respect  for  your  sincerity  and  consis- 
tency in  the  cause  of  total  abstinence. 

Should  you  apprehend  any  thing  on  this  score,  give  a  practical 
illustration  of  the  equality  and  justice  of  the  new  license  law. 
Call  the  laboring  men  you  employ,  around  you;  invite  your  rich 
friends  to  your  costly  mansion.  Set  before  them  your  choice  French 
wines,  or  the  contents  of  your  fifteen  gallon  jug.  If  it  is  empty, 
send  it  by  one  of  your  men  to  my  store,  to  be  filled. 

Indulgf?,  teu'.perately  of  course,  in  the  luxury  your  means  thus 
enable  you  to  surround  yourself  with,  under  the  sanction  of  your 
own  law,  and  if  your  workmen  who  see  all  this,  complain  that 
they  cannot  purchase  ever  so  little  of  what  you  have  so  much,  as- 
sure thein  that  it  is^all  for  their  good,  and  for  the  common  good  of 
common  people  that  their  depraved  appetites  should  be  restrained 
by  penal  enactments;  lest  they  should  become  paupers  and  increase 
your  taxes;  bat  that  you  and  your  wealthy  friends  are  invulnerable 
to  temptation  and  may  be  safely  trusted  to  your  own  more  enlight- 
ed  moral  sens©  of  right  and  wrong.         Farewell,  N.  S, 


University  of  California 

SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

405  Hilgard  Avenue,  Los  Angeles,  CA  90024-1388 

Return  this  material  to  ttie  library 

from  which  it  was  borrowed. 


Ni 


lljli 


H^-i 


Fori 


^ 


THK   LJJtJKAKl 

ONIVERSl'Ky  OF  CMJFORNMI 
LOS  ANGELES 


1 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  UBRARY  FACIUTY 


A  000  893  741  9 


HV 
5072 
W'-^2c 
1838 


